Legal Opinion

Henrietta v. Evans

California Supreme Court

Decided January 31, 1938No. L. A. 16421PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

This is an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Defendant Evans, driver of the car, was admittedly negligent, and defaulted. The sole question is whether defendants Obernolthe are liable as owners of the car, under the ‘ ‘ driving with consent” law, Vehicle Code, section 402.

The facts are not in conflict. Defendants Obernolthe, father and son, are engaged in the business of selling automobiles at Beaumont, California. Defendant Evans was an employee of a water district at Desert Center, some 75 miles away. On January 5, 1933, Evans went to…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Arcara v. MoresseNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
  2. Chaika v. VandenbergNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  3. Bradford v. SargentCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1933
  4. Heavilin v. WendellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
  5. Rowland v. SpaltiSupreme Court of Iowa · 1923

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Souza v. CortiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1943
  2. Burgess v. CahillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Peterson v. Grieger, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1961
  4. People v. One 1941 Ford 8 Stake TruckCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. AbdullahCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API